Ore. lawmaker says teachers should be allowed guns
MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) - An Oregon lawmaker contends the massacre that left more than two dozen people dead at a Connecticut elementary school is another "heartbreaking failure" of school personnel to ensure protection, and is a reminder that teachers should be allowed to carry guns in the classroom.
State Rep. Dennis Richardson, a Central Point Republican, wrote in an email to three southern Oregon school superintendents that gun bans on school property must be overturned, the Mail Tribune newspaper reported Saturday.
"If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide," he wrote.
When contacted by phone, Richardson added that he believes at least three officials in every school should be trained in the use of firearms.
In 2009, the Medford School District barred a South Medford High School teacher from bringing her gun to school. The teacher later lost a court appeal case.
"We need to ensure that our children are safe, and we can't do that by disarming those who are on the scene," Richardson said.
Medford police Chief Tim George disagreed with Richardson, saying that it's not the responsibility of teachers to make deadly force decisions on the job.
"Teachers don't go into teaching to be police officers, they want to teach kids," George said. "In crisis situations there are a lot of very complex things happening all at once and you have to constantly train for deadly force incidents."
Medford schools Superintendent Phil Long, who received the email from Richardson, said he believes it's best if teachers focus on getting children to safety if a shooting occurs. The district trains its staff in lockdown procedures meant to protect children from violence on school grounds.
Long said the district called attention to those safety procedures in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy. Employees were reminded of where to go and what to do should such a situation occur in Medford.
"I know (Richardson) is well-intentioned when he says this," Long said. "But we can't jump to conclusions immediately after a tragedy like this occurs."
State Rep. Dennis Richardson, a Central Point Republican, wrote in an email to three southern Oregon school superintendents that gun bans on school property must be overturned, the Mail Tribune newspaper reported Saturday.
"If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide," he wrote.
When contacted by phone, Richardson added that he believes at least three officials in every school should be trained in the use of firearms.
In 2009, the Medford School District barred a South Medford High School teacher from bringing her gun to school. The teacher later lost a court appeal case.
"We need to ensure that our children are safe, and we can't do that by disarming those who are on the scene," Richardson said.
Medford police Chief Tim George disagreed with Richardson, saying that it's not the responsibility of teachers to make deadly force decisions on the job.
"Teachers don't go into teaching to be police officers, they want to teach kids," George said. "In crisis situations there are a lot of very complex things happening all at once and you have to constantly train for deadly force incidents."
Medford schools Superintendent Phil Long, who received the email from Richardson, said he believes it's best if teachers focus on getting children to safety if a shooting occurs. The district trains its staff in lockdown procedures meant to protect children from violence on school grounds.
Long said the district called attention to those safety procedures in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy. Employees were reminded of where to go and what to do should such a situation occur in Medford.
"I know (Richardson) is well-intentioned when he says this," Long said. "But we can't jump to conclusions immediately after a tragedy like this occurs."
Huffington Post is runnin' with this and it seems their commenters are tad more sensible than the ones here on kval.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/oregon-state-rep-dennis-richardson-teacher-guns-stopped-connecticut-shooting_n_2317444.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Pearl High School shooting, Mississippi, 1997... the vice principal retrieved his pistol from his truck and subdued the shooter. But the media doesn't like to talk about THAT.
@PleaseBeSmart ---Bravo for the VP. I think all school VPs should have a gun locked up in their glove, locked up in a compartment of their desk, and even a kool suspender holster hidden under their sports coats (looks koolest under the female VPs). I think it is nice to see retired police and/or ex-police officers making teaching a second career. Best teachers I ever had were drill sergeants and ex-cops.
I don't feel giving teachers guns to protect our children is going to solve the problem. Teachers are people like everyone else, lets say a teacher is having a down moment and turns on there class. Or lets say a child gets a hold of a gun on school grounds, it could happen.
@Amanda Biggs ---fair enough, but how 'bout the janitors and cafeteria staff?
 @Amanda Biggs Most people don't just shoot other people when they're having a "down moment."Â
 @PleaseBeSmart "Most people" , it only takes one person.
 @godless anarchist Feel free to look up the dozens and dozens of mass shootings. They tend to stop pretty quickly when someone else with a gun shows up. I'm sure you know how to google.
 @PleaseBeSmart cite your evidence.
 @godless anarchist Statistically, that hasn't been shown to be the case. Not even close.
 @PleaseBeSmart "And one person with a gun can do a lot more damage when everyone else is unarmed" Not necessarily but the inverse can be true;  when everyone else has a  gun they can do a lot more damage even when another person has a gun.Â
 @godless anarchist That literally wasn't even close to my point. But yes, it only takes one person. And one person with a gun can do a lot more damage when everyone else is unarmed.
IT WAS A TEACHER THAT HAD THE GUNS .. SHE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!! THE GUNS WERE AT HER HOME AND THEÂ CHILDRENÂ WERE KILLED MILES Â AWAY! SO HOW COULD THIS BE BETTER IF THEY WERE IN THE CLASSROOM... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOOOOOOOOO ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27 6 year olds , wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Â
 @Karen Mello =/ That really wasn't a coherent argument as to why teachers shouldn't be allowed to have guns on campus.
@PleaseBeSmart @Karen Mello ---I agree. Her domestic life, where she left the weapons in the kids closet would not be the protocol at school. Cops kids have been known to get a hold of their folks weapons without them knowing it. In LA, I knew a kid in my neighborhood whose Ol' Man was a chief of police. Punk would sneak out a gun from his home when his dad was at work OR sleeping off a graveyard shift. We were in JHS. Old Proverb: "The shoemakers kids go barefoot".
 @Karen Mello Wow. Hysterical much?
I sense there are a lot of gun nutz posting here.
@godless anarchist And I sence there are a few who shudder at the thought of having one.....let alone using one!
 @sniperone ~owning a firearm and being a gun nut are not mutually exclusive.Â
 @godless anarchist  @sniperone The anti-gun nut gun-grabbers ride again.  One trained person (i.e., concealed carry qualified), could have put this down with few or no casualties.  I agree with QUALIFIED members of the staff and faculty being trained and in possession of an appropriate fire arm on school grounds.  Also hysterical efforts to violate the Constitutional rights of millions of America would produce serious reactions.  This is one of the red lines the criminal regime in Washington, DC, should not cross.  Molon labe.
To me it isn't so much a question of allowing teachers (or anyone else) to be armed. The question should be, would there be any value of having the belief that they 'could' be armed. In almost every instance where people have been attacked, it has been in a place where the attacker, along with everyone else, knew that guns were not allowed. On the other hand, if any one of the perpetrators at Virginia Tech, the Colorado theater or Colombine 'thought' or 'believed' a number of potential targets could and would shoot back....then maybe we would have had different outcomes. All I know is this.....this will not be the last tragedy we see and the options of dealing with them are few.      Â
@sniperone ---so sad that the options are few. Identifying the best options and possibly brainstorming more options is why I like this forum. I will bet that the policy makers and govt. officials read this blog site to do just that. At least I would like to think so.Â
Evil and ill people will always target the weak and defenseless ("gun-free zones"). This history has taught us time and time again. While I'm not sure about arming teachers themselves, I totally agree that better security needs to be put in place. People talk about not wanting to turn our schools into prisons, this is completely idiotic. First off they already kind of are. The government says your child must obtain an education either through public, private, or home for a set amount of years. This same government that sentences people to prison for a set amount of years. Back to point though, a prison is a place that keeps evil confined within it's gates. Where as a school with fences, guards, and monitoring is designed to keep evil out. Students come and go as pleased/needed but everyone else stays out unless cleared. So much of what can be replaced is hid behind phenomenal security, but the lives of our children are left more vulnerable then the stereo in your car.
Gun laws do NOT save lives. We need harsher punishments, more awareness & education and more people trained, carrying and ready to deal with the cowardly low-life scumbags.
Â
@SwiftlyJust ---if only there were a way to punish the cowardly bastards after they shoot themselves dead. But, that would cost the taxpayers too much money. A giant kegger at the mortuary for public urination on their grave/ashes is all I've got for now.
PLEASE take a minute to look at this page for the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics.You can clearly see that those states with the highest rate of gun homicides are in California and New York...where firearms are mostly illegal!
Â
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
MYTH: Concealed Carry Laws Increase Crime
FACT: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:* Murder rates drop 8%* Rape rates fall 5%* Aggravated assaults drop 7%More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right -to -carry laws.
TYPE OF CRIME HOW MUCH HIGHER IN RESTRICTIVE STATES (states without Concealed carry laws)
Violent Crime â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦81% higher
Murder â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.. 86% higher
Rape â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ 25% higher
Assaultâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ 82% higher
Robberyâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.. 105% higher
Auto Theftâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.. 60% higher
Â
* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992. During this time, ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the U.S. would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults- and would have saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.
@SwiftlyJust ---fascinating! 5 Billion a year. And, that figure does not even include the fear and suffering that never goes away. Insurance companies and real estate companies should have been joining the gun/concealed weapons lobbyists.
 @SwiftlyJust ~ Lott is not a credible source and it has been put forth by scholars that his methods were flawed and his correlations spurious.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/teret.htm
Â
@godless anarchist ---darn, I was hoping it wasn't flawed. Ceteris Paribus is bliss.
The Oregon legislature establishes all Oregon laws covering the concealed carry of firearms. Counties and cities often pass laws against carrying within their boundaries, but state law preempts local restrictions and voids these local ordinances. There are federal restrictions such as the prohibition against carrying firearms into a courthouse or airport. I believe private entities such as corporations can prohibit firearms on their property, but I'm not positive. To my knowledge there is no state law that prevents school administrators and teachers from carrying a concealed firearm while working. Administrators and teachers that want to carry while working should check with lawyer before doing so. Anyone with better knowledge on this, please add comments.
 @mackenzie0158 Private entities can "prohibit" firearms on their property, but not in the same way that firearms are prohibited in federal buildings. They can put up a sign, but no one has to comply. If caught, they can ask you to leave their property but that's it. If you don't leave, it's a trespassing charge. That is the full extent of their power to regulate firearms on their property though, and it's only because it falls under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" thing. Btw, it's only in the secured area of the airport that you can't have a firearm. Anywhere else is fine. And no, there is no state law preventing school administrators and teachers from concealed carrying, but not doing so is typically in the code of conduct you agree to abide by in order to work there. Parents who have a concealed carry license are free to carry on school grounds though.
 @mackenzie0158 Yes private companies can prohibit firearms on their property, even if the person has a concealed permit.
This comment has been deleted
@godless anarchist ---I had always been taught, that the fastest way to get shot is to own a gun yourself. Which explains, why I have never owned one.This always seemed to be an indisputable statistic. Having a gun will most probably never be used for self-defense. But, will provide peace of mind. Having a gun around, has a higher chance: of kids getting killed playing with it; people accidentally getting shot by the owner; and of course, the owner who snaps and shoots someone or himself (ie.suicide). What facts/statistics are out there to back up what I was always taught?
 @godless anarchist That is literally one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard. And it certainly doesn't jive with you "anarchist" views.
 @PleaseBeSmart Actually, it is quite logical, literally.
 @godless anarchist Shooting someone who wants to own a gun. Sounds logical to you?
Reading below i have found the answer to my own question, that you are in fact a confused anarchist.
Â
You see, I like how you 'liked' colorowdy's comment of "How about a less violent approach?" & then retort with complete irony in your above statement lol
 @Shofoeshore @mackenzie0158 What's the matter, don't you want to own   guns?Â
@godless anarchist: You're an idiot, and apparently have nothing constructive to add to this conversation. Crawl back under your rock.
@godless anarchist You don't sound like much of an anarchist if you believe in a rule such as the one you propose. Aren't you supposed to be against all rules such as every action creates an equal or greater reaction. Or are you one of those super confused anarchists that believe that you are against the current government but if you had the power they had you would make a new government that fits your needs better.... Kinda like "The pot calling the kettle black"
 @Shofoeshore  Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.
 @godless anarchist Yes, I get it. You fully believe that. And I'd say that you've stuck your head in the sand and ignored all evidence to the contrary. Families and small groups can't exist with hierarchy. Sorry, it is absolutely human nature, just as it is with many other species. Your "it just takes one" comment above? Yep... it just takes one person to seize control and you're out of your mind if you think that it's even possible for that to not happen. All credible evidence about our species is to the contrary.
 @PleaseBeSmart Society can exist without hierarchy. :)
 @godless anarchist Anarchism is the fleeting moment between the fall of one power and the rise of another. It is the absolute delusion that a society would/could exist without hierarchy.Â
I agree with him. If you're gonna trust a teacher to be alone with your children in a far away building across town or even closer, away from their own parents, then they are now responsible for your kids safety & to prevent any & all bodily harm that could ever come to your child while they are in that school. I imagine before political correctness took over in this Country, if someone would of done this to your child or at your school, every parent in the land would be armed & gaurding the outside of their own kids school building ensuring no stranger had the ability to come in & do what this guy did.
Â
However I don't believe we should train 'newbie' teachers in the safe use & handling of a firearm as much as letting the at least 1 to 3 teachers already teaching at every school that have had military, police, civilian or some sort of training & knowledge of firearms that has been passed down to them in their life times growing up, as long as they continue to practice.
Â
Â
How about a less violent approach? Like lets say the Riot Shields used that are bullet proof and have the bullet proof glass so the person using it can see? If those were stashed around the school and in class rooms an adult would have a much better chance of being able to attack and not be shot in the process....just saying fighting fire with fire is not always the best choice...being on the defense with common sense is a much better message to the children as well.
And what happens if the teachers freak out?
@Michael Michaels You mean like the US Army psychaitrist who shot all those soldiers in Texas? There are NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE; BAD THINGS HAPPEN!
"State Rep. Dennis Richardson, a Central Point Republican" Is a patriot and has my respect.